![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> D (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 787 (21 May 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/787.html Cite as: [2021] EWCA Civ 787 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT AT PRESTON
HHJ Burrows
PR21C00138
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE MALES
and
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER
____________________
D (A Child) |
____________________
Susan Grocott QC and Alex Walker (instructed by Blackpool Borough Council) for the Respondent Local Authority
Peter Rothery and Sonny Flood (instructed by John Whittle Robinson Solicitors) for the Respondent Child by their Children's Guardian
Hearing date : 21 May 2021
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Peter Jackson :
"20 Having considered the evidence before me at the time, I reached the conclusion that O's safety required removal from his mother's care. I was extremely concerned that there was no sign on the records that V was able to absorb or learn from her experience and the advice she was given. She continued to use practices (particularly relating to handling) that were unsafe. She was unable to prioritise O, consistently distracted by her mobile phone, and suffering from stress which led her to feel unsafe in the environment in which she was living.
21. I was particularly concerned also by the absence of engaged parenting- affection towards O. I considered this to be a combination of V's personality, but also her inability to approach O as her child, her responsibility. This particularly concerned me for the very reason that Peter Jackson, L.J. gave in Re C- namely the need for bonding between very young children and their parents. This seems not to be happening at all. Indeed, the point was inadvertently driven home by Mr Walker for the LA when he told me that in the period between this hearing and the adjourned hearing, even more support would be put in place for O and V- 2:1 and at times 3:1 support. This struck me as exactly the opposite of what O needs at this time. He needs close bonding with a parent or parent figure, not a team of carers from an agency.
22. My conclusion was that for O to remain in his present milieu would leave him at risk of physical harm, albeit partly ameliorated by a team of carers, but also at risk of emotional and developmental harm by missing out on close, one to one parental care.
23. I was also affected by the utter pessimism expressed by the LA as to the future. No suitable placements have been found that would accept O and V. The guardian, in her experience, was of the view that was because they do not exist. The present plan- only ever intended as a stop-gap measure, or a bridge to an assessment facility- is not a viable one in the medium to long term.
24. With this terrible sense that V was being set up (unintentionally) to fail, along with the risks identified in relation to O, I took the view that his immediate removal was necessary for his safety.
25. That being said, I have listed a hearing for next Wednesday 26 May so that the future of these care proceedings can be the subject of proper planning, with a view to seeing whether V and O's reunification is something that can be achieved in the short term, or perhaps the medium term. I have not written V off as a carer for her son. At the present time, however, I am clear that she cannot be his carer."
Lord Justice Males
Lady Justice Simler